Search This Blog

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Trust me. The secession movement is well underway in Texas. And thank God for that.

As
for this "anti-commandeering" act which renders unlawful any State
functionary to assist the federal gov't in its enforcement of
unconstitutional gun laws, it's a step in the right direction, and other
States are already seriously considering a similar move.

The coup de
grace would be when a State actually nullifies a federal action, the
difference being that nullification would criminalize enforcement by
either federal or State offices/officers--more meaningful than
simply anti-commandeering which merely punishes State officers.

Glad to see this resistance to federal usurpations.

Let's just pray
Texas doesn't shortsightedly submit itself to federal court rulings which might well overturn these perfectly legal State
actions, something weak-kneed States have been foolishly prone to do on a
whole host of constitutional issues. Let the 10th Amendment play
out!!!!!

Eliminating Democrat filibusters is the ONLY solution to this interminable bottleneck in the Senate.

In
present circumstances--unlike the period during which the Democrats so
shamelessly eliminated the filibuster while a Democrat prez (Obama)
occupied the White House--if the GOP eliminates the filibuster, a
Democrat president (Obama) can still nix any legislation Democrats in
the Senate do not support; thus, Obama would still act as a firewall against GOP
legislation. That's more than the Democrats have ever offered the GOP
when the Dems were in charge in both the Senate and the White House.

McConnell,
kill the filibuster and permit Comrade Obama to do the Senate
Democrats' bidding by his veto! Sounds perfectly sensible, legitimate
and orderly to me.

"Regular Order" should not be an end unto itself;
protecting the American people and the Constitution should trump
so-called "regular order".

Humanitarianism has
precious little to do with immigration policy these days. We're so
stupid, suicidal it's laughable--if it weren't so frightening, that is.
And this comment by a man who has been in the front line of resettling
refugees for most of his adult life.

The self-serving beast which
immigration and refugee resettlement have become today is sickening.

The appalling stupidity of permitting an influx of aliens whose
values and belief systems are incompatible with our way of life, our
traditional values and philosophy of government is mind-boggling and
nothing short of suicidal. It's like reading a horror story and already
knowing how it will all turn out. Commonsense has been abandoned.

I think Carson's detractors are missing the point entirely--either
deliberately (for political or politically correct reasons) or
inadvertently.

Carson doesn't say there should be a religious
litmus test to become prez; that would violate Art VI of the
Constitution. But, because to most Muslims sharia law trumps
constitutional law, he says HE wouldn't vote for a Muslim to fill that
position. Commonsense and a well-honed desire for survival dictates that
I wouldn't either.

If we continue to placate, appease and humor Islamism, we invite our own destruction. No thanks!

A practicing
Catholic myself, I am deeply troubled by what appear to be some clearly
neo-Marxist/liberation theological/globalist views of this Pope. Though the Pope's apologists continue to loyally sanitize and spin his words on
economics, global government and man-made global warming, it is clear to
many Catholics where this Pope's foundational base lies.

I am
reassured by the firm belief that, as in the past, the Catholic Church
will survive this Pope as well. Oh, how I miss his predecessors.

Per the 10th Amendment, Secession is a time-honored, reserved constitutional right of the States.

We've
had two wars of secession: the Revolutionary War and the deliberately
miss-named "Civil War", or, more correctly, the "War Between the States"
or the "War of Southern Secession".

It matters not a whit what the
prejudicial, radically revisionist 1869 court ruling said about a
State's right to secede; no simple-minded, agenda-driven court ruling
can overrule this fundamental right of the States.

The Founders would, to a man, support a State's authority to secede from the union it helped create.
Since
the North's costly victory in 1865, successive generations of Americans
have been brainwashed into believing that secession is somehow unlawful
and unconstitutional. Glad to see that some Americans have actually
studied our founding principles.

Personally, and given
the tyrannical direction of this union of States, I wish the secession
movement in Texas--and elsewhere--enormous success. Secession sure beats
bloody revolution. And let's face it: we need somewhere to run if we
want to escape oppression and restore constitutional order.
Go, Texas Nationalist Movement!!!!

Political correctness in any form is both S-I-C-K and subversive of our way of life.

The
black T-shirt is tasteless and offensive; but, not being a wild-eyed,
intolerant Progressive without a life I don't demand that Amazon pull
that product from its lineup. Let stupid people buy stupid things.
T-shirts don't kill people; people kill people. Those who are offended,
boycott Amazon. It's that simple.

That said, in the interest of
commonsense and fair-and-balanced, the Confederate line of products
should be fully restored by Amazon. IF not, they should be boycotted.

Why are people and companies so stupid? And I thought 3 yr olds were a handful. Duh.

We are in the West are so horribly stupid. History teaches that the
source of Muslim problems is Islam itself. Why import those who have no
interest in acculturating? Compel Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Arab
states to set up "refugee safe zones" where these "Muslim refugees" can
live a decent life until they can safely return to their homelands. The
air-conditioned tent city in Saudi Arabia intended to accommodate hundreds of thousands of Haj participants is a perfect "safe zone" where
all refugee basic needs can be provided until those refugees are able to safely return to their
countries of origin.

IF I thought Obama was a humanitarian, I'd be able to somewhat excuse
this insanity. But, Obama is NOT a humanitarian. He's a notoriously and
shamelessly unprincipled, self-serving Marxist. So, what prompts his
decision to permit 10,000--maybe more--questionable Muslim refugees to
resettle in American communities? That's rhetorical, of course. I think we know
his insidious intentions. There can be no other reason.

No matter how you cut it, the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly underscore that all powers/authority not granted to the feds or
specifically prohibited to the States are vested solely in the States.
Same-sex marriage is not an inherent right or a statutory right and is
not protected by the 14th's equal protection clause; by original
design, defining marriage falls within the exclusive authority
of the States. It's really that straightforward. In any event, the
Supreme Court has absolutely no constitutional sway in such a matter.
None.

For the federal gov't to define marriage, the Constitution
would need to be amended so that this authority is included in Art I Sec
8 of the Constitution. With Obergefell, the
constitutional options left open to the States/People are civil
disobedience, state nullification or pressing for a reversal of the
Obergefell "ruling".

The Supreme Court is empowered to review legislation and to opine if that
legislation fully comports with the clear meaning of the Constitution.
In so doing, the court is enjoined to exercise legal JUDGEMENT--not
personal WILL, as this court clearly did in the Obergefell "ruling".

In
1911, the Court said, "Among the powers of the state not
surrendered--which powers therefore remain with the state--is the power
to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its
jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, the public safety, and the
public health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the
common good." Subsequent and unconstitutional federalization of State
powers/responsibilities/rights has been destructive of our republican
fabric.

Per Chief Justice Roberts, "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should
be of no concern to [the court]. Under the Constitution, judges have
power to say what the law is, NOT what it should be. The people who
ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise 'neither force
nor will but merely judgement. The truth is that today's decision rests
on nothing more than the majority's own conviction that same-sex couple
should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that 'it would
disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this
right. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral
philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked
policy preferences adopted in Lochner. 2. Although the policy arguments
for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal
arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental
right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its
definition of marriage. And a State's decision to maintain the meaning
of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history
can hardly be called irrational. 3. The majority's decision is an act
of WILL, not legal JUDGEMENT. The right it announces has no basis in
the Constitution or this Court's precedent.The Constitution itself says
nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States
with 'the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.' "
He went on to warn that this errant/gratuitous ruling will inevitably
lead to the lawful efficacy of plural unions since such unions, unlike
same-sex unions, have deep roots in some cultures. Thus, the doctrine of
"equal protection" is inapplicable since same-sex marriage is not a
constitutional right. The court clearly overreached its constitutional
authority by its inovativeness vs faithfulness to the Constitution..

The problem for me is that I see no evidence that the "right" of
marriage, gay, polygamous, heterosexual, is defined either positively
or negatively as a specific right in the Constitution. For the
Founders,this as alluded to by Hamilton in Federalist #78, the
well-established mountain of cultural tradition and biblical
foundational precepts rendered the need to codify the institution of
traditional marriage unnecessary. The right was a cultural given. Thus,
since there is not an expressed right to marriage of any kind in the
Constitution, in Obergefell the justices relied on personal will to
grant/legalize, out of whole cloth, the right to gay marriage. Also,
inherent rights as borne out by firmly establish cultural
traditions/norms don't require reliance on "equal protection" safeguards
since such rights are inherent. Too, the Court may not GRANT rights not
expressed. Read #78 and see if you derive the same understanding.

Many believed that the republic, as originally designed,
wouldn't last beyond the first quarter of the 19th century. And to the
extent that errant case law has all but nullified the original
Constitution, they were right. Constitutional Supremacy long ago gave
way to Judicial Supremacy, and that has pretty much sealed our sorry
fate as a constitutional republic. That said, we must persevere and
restore constitutional order as best we can. The alternative is too dark
to contemplate.

Final Note: The Framers and the State Declarations of Understanding issued by the
ratifying States preceded Marbury v Madison. Let the erudition and
meaning of the former be our guide going forward. Subsequent case law is
a poor measure of original intent and understanding.

The Gulf States should be strong-armed to take in these refugees--NOT
Europe or the United States!!! Sadly, of course, the U.S. no longer has
the credibility or moral force to apply such leverage.

For me, the influx of in adequately vetted Islamic
"refugees" is but a Trojan Horse intended to undermine and weaken the
West. I'm an 'ole refugee worker and worked with refugees here and
abroad for over 20 yrs, but I am deeply alarmed by this "invasion".

Barry Obama's predictable inclination to open the floodgates to potential Islamists is nothing short of criminal.

Another option to is
to set up a well-funded, well-guarded refugee resettlement containment
area in Syria where these so-called "refugees" can live until conditions
permit them to return to their homes. From the reports I've read, so
many of these people are arrogant, demanding, insulting and simply
unappreciative. And most would rather be in Syria than be resettled elsewhere.

I've dealt with such refugees in the past, and they are
monstrously difficult to handle and seldom, if ever, assimilate. This
whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

Obama's feckless foreign policy
in the ME bears SOLE responsibility for this disaster, but, sadly, our
allies in the ME won't help out because they don't trust--nor
respect--the bozo in the White House. If ever there is a time for IMPEACHMENT of this
lawless ideologue, it is NOW!!! Il Duce Obama must be stopped!

The very concept of amendments per
Art V of the Constitution illustrates the obvious: that man is imperfect
and that his creations are necessarily subject to thoughtful
reconsideration and either subsequent clarification and/or alteration.
As well done as the Constitution is, it required some re-working and
fine-tuning as witnessed by the 27 amendments which followed
ratification. The key here is that the Constitution cannot and should
not be whimsically misinterpreted out of existence. It should only be
modified by a formal amendment process.

Historically, the 14th was a follow-on to the 13th, this to better
ensure that freed slaves were able to exercise their rights as citizens
of the US and the States within which they resided. For context, read
the 14th framers' words and some relevant historical accounts of that
period. The meaning and intent are crystal clear.

The
citizens in each state, in convention, ratified the US Constitution
which it's representatives created on their behalf in 1787; thus, by
original design, the people in each State are the final arbiters of what
is and what is not constitutional. And the People and their immediate
fiduciary agents, that being their States, are, therefore, duty-bound
to ensure that their federal representatives are faithful to the
Constitution which the People, thru their representatives, created. ALL
power emanates from the People. Without that, there is unbridled
tyranny.

The Constitution has carefully and clearly restricted the powers of
the federal government, inclusive of all its three branches, and any
power not specifically delegated by the States to the federal government
or prohibited to the States in the Constitution rest solely with the
States. This is not rocket science. Honest. If it were, I wouldn't
understand it either.

Lesson 1: to understand original meaning and intent of this and all
other provisions of the Constitution, you must take the time to read
what the framers of those provisions intended. The 14th, like the 13th,
was specifically aimed at freed slaves. Not my opinion, just the truth.

The role of the courts is not to "let the
states do whatever they want", nor is it to arrogate undelegated powers
unto themselves or to the other branches of the federal government. Read Art 1 Sec 8, Art 3,
and then the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Plain as day what
the framers had in mind.

The legal scope of the court is, per Art 3, to review legislation
to determine if, in the opinion of the court, that legislation fully
comports with the Constitution--not to interpret or re-interpret the
clear meaning of the Constitution, and most certainly NOT to make law.

The
authority of the Supreme Court is deliberately narrow in scope, and
that was the intention of the framers. Read it for yourself. Point in
fact: each branch of the federal government, not to mention the
governments of the several States, are empowered to opine on the issue
of constitutionality. This was never, ever left to the Supreme Court
alone. Checks and balances, separation of powers = Republic.

We have
strayed so very far from the Constitution that to believe we actually
live in a constitutional republic today is utterly delusional. That may
elate many dissemblers and transformationists on the left, but for us lonely constitutionalists
with families to protect, it is painfully sobering.

The 14th was narrowly intended to ban the unequal treatment of freed slaves. Nothing more nor less.
And,
please, carefully note that the Constitution prohibits the federal
government, a creation of the States, from exercising any authority not
specifically granted to it. Per the Supremacy Clause neither States nor
the Federal Government may usurp each other's authority. Federal powers
are restricted to Art 1 Sec 8. Any and all other powers, whether
expressed, implied or unstated, rest with the States. The Constitution
is the supreme law of the land--not the feds and not the States.

The real point here is that SCOTUS cannot make law; it can only opine
as to what they understand the original meaning and intent of the
Constitution to be--great challenge they continue to dodge. They are
demonstrably fallible human jurists. Nothing more. Why so many of us
treat them as omniscient deities is mind-numbing and self-destructive.
Doing so certainly does not reflect their purpose as defined by our
Founders. They've become a law unto themselves, and by our routine
compliance we are digging our republic's grave.

The court is empowered to render an opinion. It is not enforceable law. Or at least it's
not supposed to be. We permit this judicial tyranny at our own peril.

Like personal opinions, Court precedent doesn't trump the Constitution. If that were the
case, the Constitution would be an irrelevancy, a soiled piece of
worthless paper, a relic. Come to think of it, it has become irrelevant. And
therein lies our sorry fate.

There are constitutional precedents and unconstitutional
precedents. And the fallibility and constitutional faithlessness of
jurists have been on full display for decades. Court "rulings" are not
law! They are opinions. Whether you like it or not, defining marriage IS
a residual constitutional power of the States alone--not of the federal
government.

Loving
v Virginia banned the prohibition of interracial marriages. It did
NOT--and could not--provide that the institution of marriage is/was a
fundamental constitutional "right". Note: Case law "rulings" are not law
if in violation of the Constitution. No fundamental right to marriage is stated or implied.

No amendment, no matter how it is twisted and misinterpreted, can nullify another stand-alone Amendment. In short, the 14th CANNOT abridge the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution until those amendments are constitutionally amended or repealed via a formal amendment
process. Period. These particular amendments were intended to safeguard
the powers of the States and nothing more. Among those powers are,
quite literally, thousands of implied powers specifically denied, or
otherwise not delegated, to the federal government--defining marriage as
an institution being one of those countless powers.

Also, if you
do a modicum of research on the 14th, you will find that it has been
terribly--criminally--and unconstitutionally misinterpreted over the
years merely to advance political/ideological agendas. ALWAYS diligently look to original meaning and intent, not to the self-serving words of
politicians and advocates of all manner of causes.

James
Madison (Federalist #45): "The powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government, are FEW and DEFINED (See Art 1,
Sec 8 enumerated fed powers). Those which are to remain in the State
governments are NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE". Thus, defining marriage,
among countless other unenumerated State powers, is a function of the State alone--NOT of the
federal government. (The "Supreme Court" got Dred Scott wrong--among so many other cases--and, true to form, it got this ruling wrong as well. Remedy: ignore or nullify the ruling.)

And
in case you want to throw the Supremacy Clause (Art VI Para 2) at me,
this is what it clearly says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United StatesWHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all
Treaties made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in
every State shall bebound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding." As can be readily seen, the Founders rendered federal power very narrowly here, effectively limiting it to those powers specifically granted to it by the States in Art 1, Sec 8. Thus, since State and Federal powers are clearly defined in the Constitution, States may not usurp federal powers and the federal government may not usurp State powers. Thus, they are each supreme within their respective spheres of authority. And, again, federal authority is severely
restricted to Art 1 Sec 8 ENUMERATED powers, whereas the powers vested
in the States are "numerous and indefinite"--limited only by the citizens of the States.

By
the way, the 9th Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people." This amendment was intended to
protect rights not specifically enumerated as federal powers. The 10th
Amendment merely underscored that all matters over which the federal
government was not specifically granted authority rested with the States
and the People. Again, the 9th does NOT grant marriage as a
constitutional right.

Thus, defining marriage is one of the countless powers reserved to the States.

While you or I can certainly opine, that doesn't make our opinions constitute enforceable law. SCOTUS cannot limit State authority. Only the
Constitution, as written, can do that. The court's job, this per Art 3, is to
review laws and to weigh whether or not, in the court's opinion, those
laws comport with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.
They may only opine; they cannot "rule" nor enforce. And if their
opinion is at odds with the original meaning and intent of the
Constitution, it is null and void and of no effect.

No amendment, no matter how it is twisted and misinterpreted, can
nullify another stand-alone Amendment. In short, the 14th CANNOT abridge
the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution
until those amendments are constitutionally altered via a formal
amendment process. Period.

Also, if you do a modicum of research
on the 14th, you will find that it has been terribly--almost
criminally--and unconstitutionally misinterpreted over the years merely
to advance political/ideological agendas. ALWAYS diligently look to
original meaning and intent, not to the self-serving words of
politicians and advocates of all manner of causes.

James Madison
(Federalist #45): "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to
the federal government, are FEW and DEFINED (See Art 1, Sec 8 enumerated
fed powers). Those which are to remain in the State governments are
NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE". Thus, defining marriage, among countless
other unenumerated powers, is a function of the State alone--NOT of the
federal government. The "Supreme Court" got Dred Scott wrong--among so
many other cases--and, true to form, it got this ruling wrong as well.
Remedy: ignore or nullify the ruling.

And in case you want to
throw the Supremacy Clause (Art Vi Para 2) at me, this is what it
clearly says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding." As can be readily seen, the Founders
rendered federal power very narrowly here, effectively limiting it to
those powers granted to it by the States in Art 1, Sec 8. Thus, since
State and Federal powers are clearly defined in the Constitution,
States may not usurp federal powers and the federal government may not
usurp State powers. Thus, they are each supreme within their respective
spheres of authority. And, again, federal authority is severely
restricted to Art 1 Sec 8.

Easiest way to handle the 11 million+ is to 1) secure the "southern
sieve", aka southern border, 2) grant work authorization/legal residence
to "qualified" illegals (no criminality, successfully complete a
closely monitored English language trng course, pay a substantial fine
and any back taxes), 3) disallow any of these folks from ever becoming
US Citizens UNLESS they leave the country and return in a lawful manner.
This applies to visa over-stayers who comprise about 40% of all
illegal aliens in the country, 4) establish a full-proof system for
tracking ALL illegals, both gate-crashers and visa over-stayers, and
deport them when there is no record of their having departed the country
when required, 5) any illegal re-entry should result in imprisonment
for no less than 5 years. A second illegal re-entry draws a 15 yr prison
term followed by permanent bar from re-entry, 6) a stringently enforced
E-Verify/I-9 procedure to ensure employer compliance with the law.
No need to deport them en masse

It's so flaming obvious that Hillary has deleted or otherwise hidden
sensitive emails of interest to the American public. Betcha' she gets
away with it too. They're all self-serving elitist thugs !!!! The law applies to the unwashed masses, not the political elite.

And the lawlessness continues with utter impunity. Obama tastes
unchecked executive power, and he thrives in it. Thanks, GOP, for your
faithlessness and spinelessness. You are all complicit in our republic's
demise.

Hey, Roberts, don't worry so much about the public's perception of
whether you lean liberal or conservative. Be focused like a laser on
original meaning and intent. Don't "interpret" or divine a meaning not
clearly expressed. The Constitution is what it says, and the Obamacare
debacle is as written. Don't forget your oath of office. Nothing else
should matter. Right now, I trust your judiciousness and wisdom as much
as trust Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Zilch.

IF Rep. Clyburn breaks with his fellow FCC Democrats, then, perhaps, this net neutrality debacle can be prevented.

But,
what really deeply and painfully disturbs me is the fact that 5 little
unelected bureaucratic oligarchs can have the power to unilaterally
regulate the internet without congressional approval.
Congress should defund FCC and Wheeler should be held in contempt--and impeached/removed.

The solution is painfully obvious: abandon the fillibuster rule until a more trustworthy chief executive is sworn in 2017.

Which
is more important to the nation: the GOPs restoring regular order in
the Senate and permitting a Progressive fillibuster of the DHS bill OR
the GOPs upholding the Rule of Law and faithfully defending the
Constitution?

For a patriot, the choice is obvious. It's not rocket science, folks.

If
the GOP permits the DHS bill to pass, inclusive of the amnesty piece,
the GOP is complicit in undermining Judge Hanen's ruling and the
Constitution of the United States.

Oh, and by the way, DHS will
NOT be shut down even with Comrade Obama's veto. 80% of DHS personnel
have been deemed essential. They will show up for work.

Many, both on the left
and right, don't understand the meaning of the Supremacy Clause and the
10th Amendment as originally conceived by the Framers and understood by
the ratifying States. Please carefully read both.

I draw your
attention to the words "which shall be made in Pursuance of thereof" in
the Supremacy Clause. In other words, if a power is not EXPRESSLY
granted to the federal gov't in the Constitution, then that power,
whether implicit or expressed, is vested in the States, unless that
particular power is expressly prohibited to the States.

The scope
of Supreme Court authority is also severely and clearly limited in Art
III to reviewing defined areas--but NOT enforcing its will on States or
superseding State constitutional authority.

Again, the Constitution is the Supreme Law
of the Land--not the federal judiciary! When in doubt as to the powers
of the central gov't and the States, ALWAYS refer to the Constitution
itself. Do NOT rely legal misinterpretations/opinions.

No
amount of revisionist rulings/opinions by a gaggle of unelected,
black-robed judicial oligarchs can alter the fact that the CONSTITUTION,
as written, is the Supreme Law of the Land--NOT the federal government
or of any of its usurping branches. The Constitution severely limits
federal authority, while it vests enormous powers in the States. And
that is what the Founders intended.
Owing to the revisionism attending this matter over
the years plus the ignorance of We the People, we've lost our
constitutional republic. It's almost irrelevant to any
longer discuss it unless, of course, one is determined to restore
constitutional order and original intent.

Marriage--vs civil union-- is NOT a legal relationship, only insofar
as it may generate income for the gov't by gov'ts insinuating itself into marriage. Marriage is more a spiritual, religious act, quite apart from a
legal act. To generate income, gov't has involved itself in marriage
for the express purpose of collections

SUPREMACY CLAUSE TERRIBLY MISINTERPRETED

In the Supremacy Clause, please note the words "which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof", meaning, of course, that Federal law trumps
State Law when the law or power in question is specifically delegated BY
THE CONSTITUTION--not by errant and revisionist court
opinions/rulings--to the federal government. Those powers not
specifically delegated to the federal government reside with the States.
Couldn't be more unambiguous no matter how diligently one may tease the
clear meaning.

To wit, per Madison in Federalist #45: " The
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government,
are FEW AND DEFINED. Those which remain in the State governments are
NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE." He was referring explicitly to Art I Sec 8.

To
underscore this understanding as to the limitations on federal
authority, the States compelled adoption of the 10th Amendment: "The
powers NOT DELEGATED by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE
STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
Crystal, Crystal clear. Very difficult to deliberately or inadvertently
misinterpret the meaning of the 10th.

In short, federal powers are
limited to Art I Sec 8 and Art 1 Sec 10. All other powers, explicit or
implied, are reserved to the States.

From a constitutional legal
standpoint, it matters not at all that a gaggle of unelected,
black-robed, unaccountable judicial oligarchs have come to view
themselves as the final arbiters of what is or what is not
constitutional at every level of jurisprudence in these united States.
Art III permits the Supreme Court to review laws, but Art III does not
grant the Court permission to issue "rulings" or to enforce their
rulings/opinions. Art III clearly and carefully limits the scope of the
Court's authority.

As Founder Archibald Maclaine and others
asserted in 1788, "It is plain a thing as possibly can be, that Congress
can have no power but what we expressly give them." And then, there was
Mr. Pinckney of SC who, in 1788, noted "No powers could be executed or
assumed by the federal government, but such as were expressly delegated
[by the States]." And, of course, there was Jefferson who asserted that
"To consider the Judges of the Supreme Court as the ultimate Arbiters of
a Constitutional question would be a dangerous doctrine which would
place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. I see no safe depositary
of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves." And, as
Justice Chase noted in 1789, "The several State Legislatures RETAIN all
the powers of LEGISLATION, delegated to them by the State Constitution,
which are not EXPRESSLY taken away by the Constitution of the United
States." Even Hamilton, a big gov't advocate, asserted that "NO legislative
act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. Whatever is not EXPRESSLY
given to the federal head, is reserved to the members."

I could go on,
but these guys knew what they were crafting and the States understood
what they were ratifying, that being a severely limited central government
and more powerful State governments. Of course, you wouldn't know that
today. The Court, like all other branches of the federal government,
have usurped authorities never, ever envisioned or sanctioned directly
or indirectly by the Founders or the Supreme Law of the Land. And We the
People, by our ignorance and submissive silence, have permitted it.

The
US Constitution--NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--is the Supreme Law of the
Land. When either the State or the Federal Government usurps powers not
constitutionally granted to or otherwise vested in them, the Supreme Law
of the Land is thus violated.

Thanks to decades of violations, we
are no longer a constitutional republic. And we never will be again
until the People resist this insidious transformation and restore
constitutional order.

While it wasn't always like this, most
lawyers and judges are trained to win cases and to advance their
agendas, not to defend the Constitution. Faithfulness to and familiarity
with the Constitution are, at best, afterthoughts to many of these
fellows.

Like motorcycle helmets, marijuana and infinite array of
other matters not expressly granted to the federal government or denied
to the States, gay marriage and, as said, a whole host of other matters
fall within the constitutional authority of the States. We'd best
understand this, or we lose what precious little remains of our tattered
Constitutional Republic.

ET TU, NAPOLITANO?

And only today on FOX I heard Judge Napolitano assert that whenever
there is a judicial clash between State and Federal authority on a
particuLAr issue, in this case gay marriage, that the Supremacy Clause
dictates that federal authority prevails. WHAT???????????????

Napolitano is clearly a product of a liberal law school education.

The
Supremacy Clause grants supremacy to the US CONSTITUTION alone--not to
either the State or Federal authorities. In short, unless the federal
government is specifically granted a particular power by the
Constitution, the federal government MUST defer to State authority in
the matter, this per the US Constitution (10th Amendment), aka the
Supreme Law of the Land.

Napolitano's a good man, but on this fundamental point he is painfully
and acutely at odds with the Founders and the Constitution they crafted
and ratified. His grotesque misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the
Supremacy Clause is as much a threat to constitutional order as is
Liberalism and Progressivism.

Any imperious "ruling" by the Supreme Court which violates State
sovereignty per the 10th Amendment and, therefore, the Constitution of
the US, the latter being THE supreme law of the land, is null and void
and should be summarily ignored by Alabama and every other State.
Alabama should NOT submit to judicial overreach. Submitting is enabling
federal tyranny. Without question, gay marriage, like myriad other
issues/areas falls squarely within the constitutional powers of the
States--NOT NOT NOT the federal
government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps such an awful attack on the homeland will finally awaken the
millions of mindless or otherwise soporific American robots to the threat posed
by ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and their apologist in the White House. But, don't count on it. The ignorance in this country is dangerously
pervasive and foundational.

Stop the hand-wringing, Alaska, and IGNORE/NULLIFY the royal White House edict!!!!!!!!

Regarding
federal control of State land, do you want to know your authority as a
sovereign State? For starters, check out the post entitled "Federal
Imperialism vs State Sovereignty" on Opinerlog.blogspot,com.

The
solution to this brazen federal overreach is as plain as the snow on
your face! Stop roiling, whining, grovelling. JUST SAY NO BLOODY WAY
!!!!!!! Am just so sick of States unwilling to stand up for themselves
and their citizens!!!!! SICK!

About Me

Retired 2003 as Assoc. Dir. Refugee & Immigration Services in Rochester. A Vietnam veteran (Captain, Infantry/Civil Affairs/Psy Ops), spent many years in Southeast Asia, Africa, Subcontinent managing disaster relief and development projects. Am a small businessman and keenly interested in history and the Constitution. Concerned that our country is being inexorably drawn toward Socialism and that Americans are unwittingly abandoning our founding governing principles and, in the process, our liberties, way of life and economic vitality. Disillusioned with the radicalized Democratic Party, became a member of the Greece and Monroe County Republican Committees until July 2012 when I became a registered member of the Conservative Party. Although politically conservative and a constitutional originalist, I welcome all constructive opinions. Only through common-sense dialogue, objective evaluation of opposing patriotic viewpoints, and a studious adherence to the Constitution can we all learn and develop responsible positions which will benefit our Republic. Member of Rochester Conservatives, the Tea Party, American Legion, Vietnam Vets of America, Gun Owners of America, NRA.